Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 20STCV07661, Date: 2023-04-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV07661 Hearing Date: April 4, 2023 Dept: 47
Tentative Ruling
Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47
HEARING DATE: April 4, 2023 TRIAL DATE: NOT
SET
CASE: Shavonne Hunter as Attorney-in-Fact for
Grace Elaine Taylor-Barnwell v. Yolanda Brown et al.
CASE NO.: 20STCV07661 
MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Shavonne Hunter as Attorney-in-Fact for
Grace Elaine Taylor-Barnwell
RESPONDING PARTY(S): No response on
eCourt as of 03/29/23
STATEMENT
OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
This is an action for fraud, elder abuse, and breach of contract that was
filed on February 27, 2020.
Plaintiff moves for leave to amend
the Complaint.
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff’s
Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint is DENIED.
DISCUSSION:
Plaintiff moves for leave to file
an amended complaint.
Title of Motion
Plaintiff filed this motion as a
“motion for reconsideration” and handwrote “reconsideration” in the caption of
the motion. However, the typed caption states this is a motion for leave to
amend the Complaint, as authorized by the Court in its December 21, 2022 Minute
Order. Further, the body of the motion appears to concern the addition of a
survivor’s claim under Code of Civil Procedure section 377.30 and makes no
reference to any order that would require reconsideration. Thus, the Court
construes this motion as a motion for leave to amend and will consider its
merits on that basis.
Legal Standard
The Court may, “at any time before
or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such
terms as may be proper, . . . allow the amendment of any pleading.” (Code Civ.
Proc. § 576.) A motion to amend a pleading before trial must meet the following
requirements:
(a) Contents of
motion
A motion to amend a
pleading before trial must:
(1) Include a copy of
the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to
differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments;
(2) State what
allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and
where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are
located; and
(3) State what
allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and
where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are
located.
(b) Supporting
declaration
A separate declaration
must accompany the motion and must specify:
(1) The effect of the
amendment;
(2) Why the amendment
is necessary and proper;
(3) When the facts
giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and
(4) The reasons why
the request for amendment was not made earlier.
(CRC 3.1324.)
Contents of Motion
Plaintiff
did not include a copy of the proposed first amended complaint and has
therefore not complied with Rule of Court 3.1324(a)(1). Nor does Plaintiff
indicate what, if any allegations are to be added or deleted by page,
paragraph, and line number, as required by Rule 3.1324(a) (2) and (3). The
Court therefore finds that Plaintiff has not complied with the requirements for
the motion itself. For this reason alone, the Court would be empowered to deny
the motion.
Supporting Declaration
Plaintiff did not
include a supporting declaration with this motion. Even construing the contents
of Plaintiff’s motion as attempting substantial compliance with the
requirements of Rule 3.1324(b), the papers are insufficient. As Plaintiff has
not adequately specified the amendments proposed, Plaintiff has not stated the
effects of any proposed amendments, as required by Rule 3.1324(b)(1), even
construing the stated intention to add a survivorship cause of action in the
light most favorable to Plaintiff. Nor does Plaintiff make any attempt to show
why the amendments are necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the
amendments were discovered, or why the request was not made earlier.
In the Court’s
October 11, 2022 ruling on the previous motion to amend the Complaint, the
Court stated:
As the Court instructed Plaintiff to
file this motion in light of the Probate Court ruling that established that
Plaintiff lacked standing under the causes of action as alleged, had Plaintiff
set forth specific proposed amendments to the Complaint, the Court might have
been inclined to find substantial compliance on the basis that the necessity of
the amendments, the facts giving rise to the amended allegations, and the
reasons why the requests were not made earlier all stem from the Court’s
September 1, 2022 order.
(October 11, 2022 Minute Order.) The same observations hold
here. In that previous ruling, however, the Court instructed Plaintiff to file
a procedurally proper motion for leave to amend. Instead, Plaintiff
filed a second motion that contains the same defects as the first, despite the
Court’s explicit instruction to the contrary and delineation of the necessary
procedural elements in the Court’s Minute Order. (See October 11, 2022 Minute
Order.)
Plaintiff
has entirely failed to comply with the Rules of Court regarding a Motion for
Leave to Amend for a second time. The Court therefore finds that leave to amend
is not warranted in these circumstances.
CONCLUSION:
Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint is DENIED.
//
//
Court to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 4, 2023 ___________________________________
Theresa
M. Traber
Judge
of the Superior Court
Any party may submit on the
tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day
before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It
should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still
conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you
have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you
should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an
order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.